I've been reflecting on the possibilities for teaching church history to ministers in training and lay people in churches. Friends in theological college have often complained about how bored they are by their church history subjects, and church history often only figures in sermons by way of anecdotes of doubtful veracity. On a more personal level, I've been asking myself how I use what I've learned in my years of studying obscure bits of the past to serve the broader Christian community.
Tentatively, I've been considering the value of a subject called something like 'Encountering church history in contemporary culture'. Most Australians only ever encounter church history through contemporary culture (for example, randomly, the Puritan Whiteadders in Blackadder, the upheavals of the Reformation in Elizabeth or Luther, heroic missionary endeavour in Molokai, the Mormons in South Park, or most obviously the DaVinci Code) and it seems vital to me that Christians have a set of skills with which to respond to these representations. Not simply the ability to test the historical accuracy of particular portrayals, but the ability to recognise how these portrayals reflect contemporary concerns.
The recent film Luther is a great example: Luther, while appropriately conflicted, is very much a SNAG. His concern for the poor and disadvantaged is centre stage. His responsibility for the slaughter of the peasants is skimmed over. He doesn't swear or drink lots of beer or smoke a pipe. Katie scrubs up, puts on a nice frock and romantic wooing ensues. The film isn't worthless, but it is as revealing about us as it is about the Reformation. To respond to it thoughtfully involves more than just uncritical acceptance or nitpicking about historical details. Recognising what we are comfortable celebrating and what we want to forget prompts really valuable reflection on our relationship with the church's past. So I'd love to develop a subject which encouraged Christians to think deeply about how to recognise and engage with church history as it is represented within our own culture.
3 comments:
Most of my church history classes that I studied in were filled with students who couldn't see the relevence of the material. And it wasn't because the lecturer was boring or hard to follow. They just were focused on the now and the new - a cultural lens that they didn't even know they had. Combine that with a general Protestant (esp. Evangelical) suspicion of Roman Catholicism and they really didn't see themselves as part of that history - rather they started in Acts and jumped to Luther.
People did get interested though when the topic did connect with current events - like studying the Radical Reformation while a general election in on - great discussions on the role of Christians in government and whether a theocracy would be best.
It's not only church history though. I've marked many theology essays that don't consider the historical context in any depth (or at all).
Where I've see church history have more impact with students is when they study historical and contemporary Christian spirituality and need to understand the context of people like St. Francis or Julian of Norwich in order to develop an contemporary application for individuals or a community. Then they discover these people were real people just like them.
I haven't seen the Luther movie but I have seen the "Empires" docu-drama that you had on SBS and would like to compare the two sometime.
Actually I'd like to modify that last post to "rather they started in Acts and jumped to Calvin." I think Luther was a bit of a shock to them - too earthy in some ways and still a little too Catholic in others.
Thanks, Stephen - those are helpful insights. I've never done a church history subject myself! More broadly, though, I'm convinced that one of the most important things history does is provide those moments of shocking difference that upset our assumptions about 'our' heritage. Luther's 'earthiness' (or his approval of icons!) is a good example in the context of contemporary evangelical ideas about 'godliness'. But the same applies to students in the 'secular' academy encountering, for example, a past society where theological questions were actually seen as centrally important. Where those 'shocks' provoke thoughtful reflection on the assumptions of the present - on that 'cultural lens' you describe - they can be enormously productive. They can, of course, simply confuse and alienate people, and I think there's a skill in helping people to move from 'shock' to helpful reflection and response.
I should add that something like the subject I imagined in my post would be a second or third level subject, requring some a basic historical framework. It would not primarily be a context for teaching church history, but for considering the relevance of historical thinking for Christians today.
Post a Comment